On 23 November, 2016 - Robert Helling wrote: > From 404205c8f1aa37be374c2ba17acceb3541620bce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "Robert C. Helling" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:50:50 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Show effective gradient factors for VPMB-plans > To: [email protected] > > For each stop, this computes an effective gradient factor > that gives the same ceiling. Then, it does linear regression > to find values for GFlow and GFhigh that give a similar deco > profile. > > Note that this optimises the average gradient factor. The > runtime however depends strongly at the gradient factor at > the last depth. So we don't necessarily to get the runtime > right. >
There's something wonkey in this patch. Try to plan a deco dive, 18/40 25min @60m with a 50% as deco gas, and then click on the VPM-B Conservatism level spinbox. As you step it up and down the effective GF field in the plan details just jumps all over the place. I can provoke it into producing: Subsurface dive plan based on VPM-B at +1 conservatism, effective GF=25/89 Runtime: 78min Subsurface dive plan based on VPM-B at +1 conservatism, effective GF=18/85 Runtime: 78min It depends if i step to +1 from +0 or from +2. Timing issue somewhere? Weird numeric instability? //Anton -- Anton Lundin +46702-161604 _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
